MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154516444 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2012.6249268

Overcoming the energy versus delay trade-off in cloud network reconfiguration

2012· article· en· W2154516444 on OpenAlexaff
Burak Kantarcı, Hussein T. Mouftah

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningCloud computingComputer scienceEnergy consumptionControl reconfigurationComputer networkNetwork delayQuality of servicePropagation delayEnd-to-end delayEfficient energy useDistributed computingEngineeringEmbedded systemElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cloud computing calls for efficient solutions to manage the energy consumption of the transport, process and storage services. Recently, we have shown that energy savings in the cloud network and the data centers are at the expense of increased delay; hence degraded service quality. In this paper we propose a new scheme, Delay and Power Minimized Provisioning (DePoMiP) to address energy versus delay tradeoff in the cloud network. DePoMiP reconfigures the cloud network and provisions the demands by jointly minimizing the energy consumption and propagation delay. Through simulations, we compare DePoMiP to our previously proposed heuristics for delay-minimized provisioning and power-minimized provisioning of the demands. Simulation results show that DePoMiP mimics power-minimized provisioning in terms of power consumption while it provisions the demands with a few microseconds higher propagation delay when compared to delay-minimized provisioning. Furthermore, its low channel utilization in the IP over WDM transport network, as well as its fairness among the nodes in terms of power consumption, makes DePoMiP a promising solution for the problem of energy-efficient reconfiguration of the cloud network.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207